Books: Toulmin’s Cosmopolis

May 6, 2008

I’m trying to get in the habit of writing short reviews of all the books I’m reading. When I think they could be of general interest, I’ll try to post them here. With that in mind, here’s a review of Stephen Toulmin’s Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity (Chicago: Macmillan, 1990).

Toulmin’s job here is to give an alternate reading to the “standard account” of modernity as ushering in the age of reason and tolerance. Basically, he sees Renaissance humanist skepticism (Montaigne, Shakespeare, Rabelais, Erasmus, Machiavelli, etc.) as celebrating pluralism and accepting the limited nature of human reason, and so focusing on the timely, local, particular oral, rhetorical, experimental, and so on. With the death of Henry IV and the advent of the 30 Years War, intellectuals at every level turn their back on skepticism in the search for “pure reason”–the reversal of all the Renaissance foci. The modern period, represented at its birth by Descartes and Donne, and later by Leibniz and Newton, is characterized by the search for a unified science, absolute authority vested in nation-states, universal art, and total philosophical certainty. In sum, it searched for a new “cosmopolis” in which the predictable, cause-and-effect character “found” in the natural world was seen to be of a piece with the “rational” character of human reason and society. This search, much more than the limited aims of medieval or Renaissance societies, gave rise to political absolutism and intellectual and cultural intolerance.

Toulmin believes that the 18th and 19th centuries and early 20th century witnessed a return to a more humanistic perspective (Kant, Freud, Darwin, Einstein, Austen, etc.), which was “deferred” by the two world wars, and then the Cold War. But we are currently experiencing a return to Renaissance values, as seen in the thought of Kuhn, Rorty, Walzer, Gadamer, Ong, and Wittgenstein. Overall this transformation can be termed a turn to the practical; e.g., in ethics we see a return to the particularism of casuistry (Walzer), in science and medicine a focus on application rather than pure theory, in art the breakdown of the “high” and “low” culture distinctions, and in politics, new possibilities for internationalism and the expanded role of non-governmental institutions, which wield moral influence rather than force. Toulmin embraces these changes, calling for the continued “humanization”, that is, subordination to human interests rather than the aims of ideological purity or certainty, of each of the various disciplines he touches on.

A fascinating and quick book, which is quite useful given the breadth of its overview and the depth of its historical insights. That said, the discussion is rarely technical; Jeff Stout’s Flight From Authority is much better in this regard. Though his narrative of modernism may be essentially sound (I’m not really qualified here), in retrospect, Toulmin’s conclusions seem somewhat naive. Many universities (and high schools) have adopted a more practical, “people centered” curriculum; but this emphasis on the practical, devoid of richer ontological or teleological accounts, only makes the “practical” subservient to the managerial and technocratic needs of contemporary global capitalism, and more often than not (especially in the sciences), the ever-expanding diet of national militaries. We surely need to learn from the Aristotelian emphasis on practical wisdom; but this cannot be sundered from Platonic speculation about the ultimate Good, however chaste we are about our claims to have identified that Good. A Platonic-Aristotelian synthesis, and indeed something which exceeds this synthesis, is to be preferred over Toulmin’s reductionist pragmatism. He does, however, make some good points about the importance of NGOs in the political sphere, the need for international political bodies to find a better way of incorporating multiple types of political communities, and the general move away from the nation-state. These recommendations seem particularly urgent in light of American foreign policy since 2003.

Fish on Deconstruction, Pt 2

April 22, 2008

Apparently around 600 people commented on Stanley Fish’s earlier article on French deconstruction, so he has posted a response. Here he argues that deconstruction only disrupts the idea of a theory of knowledge (epistemology), not the ideas we use on a day-to-day basis. Deconstruction, for Fish, is apolitical, because “theories of knowledge” don’t really contribute to politics anyway, so whether you have one or not doesn’t really matter. His argument is basically pragmatic, and he tips his hand when he starts quoting Dewey. In essence, this is a recapitulation of Richard Rorty’s thesis in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. That Rorty went on to work with Continental philosophers gives some validity to the deconstruction-pragmatist connection Fish is trying to make, but I wonder if Continentals would really accept a pragmatist label.

El Papa & The UN

April 19, 2008

The Pope kicked it over at the United Nations HQ yesterday, giving a great 30 minute speech on the importance of human rights in resolving international disputes, and the indispensability of the transcendent in grounding human rights. Here are some highlights:

On science and technology:

Here our thoughts turn also to the way the results of scientific research and technological advances have sometimes been applied. Notwithstanding the enormous benefits that humanity can gain, some instances of this represent a clear violation of the order of creation, to the point where not only is the sacred character of life contradicted, but the human person and the family are robbed of their natural identity. Likewise, international action to preserve the environment and to protect various forms of life on earth must not only guarantee a rational use of technology and science, but must also rediscover the authentic image of creation. This never requires a choice to be made between science and ethics: rather it is a question of adopting a scientific method that is truly respectful of ethical imperatives.

On transcendence and human rights:

The founding of the United Nations, as we know, coincided with the profound upheavals that humanity experienced when reference to the meaning of transcendence and natural reason was abandoned, and in consequence, freedom and human dignity were grossly violated. When this happens, it threatens the objective foundations of the values inspiring and governing the international order and it undermines the cogent and inviolable principles formulated and consolidated by the United Nations. When faced with new and insistent challenges, it is a mistake to fall back on a pragmatic approach, limited to determining “common ground”, minimal in content and weak in its effect.

It is evident, though, that the rights recognized and expounded in the [Universal Declaration of Human Rights] apply to everyone by virtue of the common origin of the person, who remains the high-point of God’s creative design for the world and for history. They are based on the natural law inscribed on human hearts and present in different cultures and civilizations. Removing human rights from this context would mean restricting their range and yielding to a relativistic conception, according to which the meaning and interpretation of rights could vary and their universality would be denied in the name of different cultural, political, social and even religious outlooks. This great variety of viewpoints must not be allowed to obscure the fact that not only rights are universal, but so too is the human person, the subject of those rights.

On conversion and justice:


Discernment, then, shows that entrusting exclusively to individual States, with their laws and institutions, the final responsibility to meet the aspirations of persons, communities and entire peoples, can sometimes have consequences that exclude the possibility of a social order respectful of the dignity and rights of the person. On the other hand, a vision of life firmly anchored in the religious dimension can help to achieve this, since recognition of the transcendent value of every man and woman favours conversion of heart, which then leads to a commitment to resist violence, terrorism and war, and to promote justice and peace.

On the Church and the UN:

The United Nations remains a privileged setting in which the Church is committed to contributing her experience “of humanity”, developed over the centuries among peoples of every race and culture, and placing it at the disposal of all members of the international community. This experience and activity, directed towards attaining freedom for every believer, seeks also to increase the protection given to the rights of the person. Those rights are grounded and shaped by the transcendent nature of the person, which permits men and women to pursue their journey of faith and their search for God in this world. Recognition of this dimension must be strengthened if we are to sustain humanity’s hope for a better world and if we are to create the conditions for peace, development, cooperation, and guarantee of rights for future generations.

(The full text is available here and the NY Times has a cool interactive page with the video and text.)

Fish on Deconstruction

April 7, 2008

The noted American literary critic Stanley Fish has written an excellent summary of postmodern philosophy in his latest column for the NY Times. Especially helpful is his presentation of Anglo-American and Continental postmodernists as offering similar, rather than competing, solutions to Enlightenment problematics. Of course, were he to bring postmodern Aristotelians like Alasdair MacIntyre into the picture, his narrative would become much more complicated. But a useful introduction nonetheless.

Iraq, Islam, and Religion and Politics

March 16, 2008

An article in today’s NY Times calls attention to the largely economic–and not religious or ideological–motivation behind the Sunni insurgency in Iraq:

“In fact, money, far more than jihadist ideology, is a crucial motivation for a majority of Sunni insurgents, according to American officers in some Sunni provinces and other military officials in Iraq who have reviewed detainee surveys and other intelligence on the insurgency.

Although many American military officials and politicians — and even the Iraqi public — use the term Al Qaeda as a synonym for the insurgency, some American and Iraqi experts say they believe that the number of committed religious ideologues remains small.”

So if it’s money, and not religion, then what of the West’s fear of Islam? What of the “New Atheist” argument that Iraq is just the latest exhibit of why religion should be purged from public life?

Of course, reality isn’t as simple as the article suggests. Just as war (or anything else) can’t be reduced to conflicting spiritual beliefs, nor can it be reduced to purely economic logic. The reduction to “beliefs” is the West’s error since the Thirty Years War, and the reduction to economics is the West’s error since Marx. In Iraq, Tibet, Washington, D.C., … in all politics we find irreducible, inseparable mixtures of beliefs about the way the cosmos works–”religion”–with the concerns of a near-sighted pragmatism–be it “economics” or whatever.

Returns

January 28, 2008

I’ve been reading and writing on the Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder non-stop for the last month. This has been a labor of love, as Yoder is my favorite author, but I’m also looking forward to getting on to new things soon.

The first bit of my research was focused on revising a paper I’ve submitted to an academic journal for publication. The paper is a defense of Yoder’s ethics as speaking incisively to a globalized world. I argue that many of the various church practices Yoder recommends are directly relevant to a scenario in which global capitalism dominates. But I question the thesis of capitalism’s hegemony by reviewing various theological and social science perspectives that indicate alternative patterns of domination (i.e., that the nation-state still has some strong role). I conclude by returning to Yoder’s theological assertion that the “state”–that which has been mandated by God to wield the sword to promote “order”–is fairly stable over time. Whoever holds the reigns of global power–be it corporations or nation-states or whatever–we can expect them to oscillate between relative decency and tyranny. The state will never be perfect, so we can always critique it; but it will never be so evil that our only option is revolt. Yoder has been accused of reducing theology, and in particular the sacraments, to ethics, so I include a section showing how all of the church practices Yoder recommends are within the context of Christ’s reign over the world and the presence of the Holy Spirit in the church.

That essay ties in directly to my dissertation, so I’m expanding on that research to write a short summary of how I think Yoder’s theology works for church activism, especially in comparison to Milbank’s work. Basically my argument is that by placing Christian witness in the context of Christ’s reign, and under the life of Jesus’ life as its standard, Yoder’s theology is far more concrete than Milbank’s, and thus more easily adaptable to the work of churches. Because Jesus’ life, and preeminently the cross, is normative for the church, the church expects to be a minority within society, which frees it to experiment with solutions to social problems. It also frees the church to take up the language and concepts of society provisionally, neither accepting them as normative, nor refusing them outright–which means relationships with outsiders can be irenic, even if always critical. All of this adds up to an alternative Christian sociology to that proposed by Milbank, a way to describe and live in the world that is rigorously theological yet practical for churches.

That essay is due to my supervisor on Friday, so I expect this week to be pretty intense.

For anyone interested in learning more about Yoder, Notre Dame (where he taught) has a resource site with unpublished writings, as well as his obituary from the New York Times.

The Mennonite Quarterly Review has a short article by Mark Nation on a Yoderian view of conflict transformation, and something by Tom Harder on “the dichotomy between faithfulness and effectiveness” in Yoder’s work.

Mennonite Life has a very brief piece by Anthony Siegrist on the apocalyptic in Yoder’s theology.

Wikipedia, of course, also has a short overview.

Musics

December 27, 2007

For anyone who might actually care, here’s a roughly ordered list of some music I enjoyed from the passing year (click on artist’s name to listen):

1. Blonde Redhead, 23

2. Chicago Underground Trio, Chronicle

3. Humcrush, Hornswoggle

4. PJ Harvey, White Chalk

5. Han Bennink, Amplified Trio

6. James Blackshaw, The Cloud of Unknowing

7. Battles, Mirrored

8. Jandek, Manhattan Tuesday

9. Radiohead, In Rainbows

10. New David Garza tracks on MySpace

Other records I enjoyed this year for the first time: Afghan Whigs, Gentlemen; a Nina Simone compilation a friend made; Atomic, Happy New Ears!; Art Blakey, Moanin’; Boris, Pink; Can, Ege Bamyasi and Tago Mago; Ornette Coleman, Dancing in Your Head; Midlake, The Trials of Von Occupanther (the first half of it, anyway).

And, since I’m in a list mood, my favorite concerts this year were:

1. Instant Composers Pool Orchestra @ the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

2. Borbetomagus (with Lexie Mountain opening) @ some loft in Baltimore, MD

3. Humcrush @ Emo’s, Austin, TX

4. Jandek @ The Rose Marine Theatre, Forth Worth, TX

5. Atomic @ Twins Jazz, Washington, D.C.

6. Lexie Mountain Boys @ SXSW, Austin, TX

7. Bodies of Water @ Pershing Square, Los Angeles, CA

8. Asthmatic Kitty showcase @ Okay Mountain, SXSW, Austin, TX (feat. Red Hunter, Castanets, Weird Weeds)

9. Willie Nelson @ the Backyard, Austin, TX

10. Acid Mother’s Temple @ Rock N Roll Hotel, Washington, D.C.

11. Blonde Redhead @ Emo’s, Austin, TX

Hauerwas

December 5, 2007

Okay, here are some decent links about Hauerwas, the second theologian I’m writing about:

Christian Contrarian is the piece Jean Elshtain wrote in Time naming Hauerwas America’s “best theologian.” Hauerwas has responded that “best” is not a theological category.

This is a good, short piece on Hauerwas’s pacifism.

And Faith Fires Back is a fairly long interview with Hauerwas by Bill Cavanaugh that touches on several aspects of Hauerwas’s theology.

None of these articles gets much into Hauerwas’s development of virtue and narrative as determinative for Christian theology–the moves he made his name on in the 70s and early 80s. But the articles should provide a decent look into his character and thought for those who are interested. And for those really interested, and who haven’t noticed yet, there is quite a debate going on about Hauerwas in the comments section of my post on Milbank.

Why I love Scotland

December 4, 2007

I opened the shared refrigerator on my floor tonight, and found this:

For the uninitiated, this is a Scotch egg. The wrapper describes it as an egg, wrapped in bacon, and breaded. Mmmmmm.

Between the lines of ages

November 24, 2007

dsc00878.jpg

I’ve uploaded lots of new pictures to my Flickr account.

Busy with research on Stanley Hauerwas. I’ll post better links soon.